Fixing high skill checks - the Rule of 3

[Kerrick]

Why not just erase most of the means of increasing skills? Their base ranks, if they put in max ranks, give a 1st level character a 50% chance to make a DC 13 check, a 10th level character a 50% chance to make a DC 23 check, and a 20th level character a 50% chance to make a DC 33 check. This seems balanced to me, though the x4 at first level thing makes the numbers odd.

That's not a bad idea, but there's a lot of stuff that adds to skill scores - spells, magic items, PrC abilities, familiars, etc. I've already scaled down the bonuses items and spells can grant - you can't get more than +15 pre-epic.

(BTW, it's 55%, not 50% - a L1 PC has to roll 9 or better on the die.)

Ability scores can mess up these numbers, so get rid of that association.

What's the point of having high ability scores then? Or ability scores at all?

With a +5/+10 item or spell, they can more reliably make these checks, but they are sacrificing combat ability (in gold or spell slots), which is fine. Make the items enhancement bonuses so that they don't stack with the spells.

Most items already are enhancement bonuses.

 

[Gantros]

I like the idea of finding a fix for the runaway skill problem at higher levels, but I think your proposed solution shifts the problem to low level PCs instead.

With the Rule of 3, a 1st level PC that attempted to completely max out a skill could only hope for a +3 or +4 at best, vs. +0 for a completely unskilled PC. That differential just seems too small... it basically prevents a highly skilled low-level PC from doing anything an average commoner couldn't do, they just get to do it a bit more reliably. A rogue with Dex 18 who attempted to max out their Open Locks / Disable Device skill would have no chance of opening even an average lock until level 3-6, even taking 20 with masterwork tools.

The Rule of 3 also doesn't really address the complexity issue at high levels, where each skill has an excessive number of modifiers. Kitty Joker's idea is kind of interesting in that it kills two birds with one stone. Ability scores already have plenty of uses beyond modifying skill checks (ability checks, combat bonuses, prerequisites, extra spells, etc.)

What do you think of this idea... instead of adding ability mods to skills or dividing everything by 3, just say the total bonus for any skill can ever exceed the key ability score for that skill. So for example, a PC with Cha 15 has a max Bluff skill bonus of +15 from all sources. This soft cap could be raised by increasing the key ability score by any means.

I can see this having several benefits... it still allows significant skill differentiation at lower levels, while keeping things from getting out of hand at high levels (since ability scores are generally tougher to increase than skill modifiers). It also takes one modifier out of the equation for every skill (while still allowing higher ability scores to provide a benefit at higher levels), and simplifies the math a bit (since you can stop counting mods when you hit the max bonus).

 

[Kerrick]

I like the idea of finding a fix for the runaway skill problem at higher levels, but I think your proposed solution shifts the problem to low level PCs instead.

With the Rule of 3, a 1st level PC that attempted to completely max out a skill could only hope for a +3 or +4 at best, vs. +0 for a completely unskilled PC. That differential just seems too small... it basically prevents a highly skilled low-level PC from doing anything an average commoner couldn't do, they just get to do it a bit more reliably. A rogue with Dex 18 who attempted to max out their Open Locks / Disable Device skill would have no chance of opening even an average lock until level 3-6, even taking 20 with masterwork tools.

You have a point, and I have noticed that myself. BUT... I figure that anything above DC 15 should be pretty difficult for low-level PCs - they're little better than commoners themselves until they get to L3ish. Also, I've reduced the DC for opening locks (since you mentioned that) to start at 10 for very simple. A very simple lock is something that a kid with a bobby pin could pop inside of a minute, so it makes little sense for it to be DC 20.

The Rule of 3 also doesn't really address the complexity issue at high levels, where each skill has an excessive number of modifiers. Kitty Joker's idea is kind of interesting in that it kills two birds with one stone. Ability scores already have plenty of uses beyond modifying skill checks (ability checks, combat bonuses, prerequisites, extra spells, etc.)

On its own, it doesn't, no. I'm working on that, too - this is part of a larger ruleset. All you have to do, really, is cut down the number of different bonuses that can add to skills. I reduced it to ability, circumstance, competence, enhancement, insight, morale, and racial. Luck bonuses are basically the same as circumstance, so that was easy to drop. Insight rarely, if ever, comes up, and racial is a limited bonus, so we're left with ability, circumstance, competence, enhancement, and morale. Of those, I'm seriously considering combining competence and enhancement, since they're basically the same thing; circumstance is a limited bonus (rarely more than +5), so between enhancement and morale, that's not a lot.

What do you think of this idea... instead of adding ability mods to skills or dividing everything by 3, just say the total bonus for any skill can ever exceed the key ability score for that skill. So for example, a PC with Cha 15 has a max Bluff skill bonus of +15 from all sources. This soft cap could be raised by increasing the key ability score by any means.

Hmm. Interesting. I see some loopholes/problems with it (does boosting the stat score via magic item increase the cap?), but it could work.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

d20 is a great system, but one place where it falls apart very quickly is the skills. The PHB states that DC 10 is average, DC 15 tough, DC 20 challenging, DC 25 formidable, DC 30 heroic, and DC 40 nearly impossible... but your average L10 PC can make a DC 30 check. WTF? After L15, DCs become more or less meaningless, unless it's a cross-class skill (in which case you probably can't make it at all, since the DCs are scaled for PCs with high scores).

I'm a little late to this party, but I have a couple suggestions. It seems like you're trying to solve your skill problems the hard way, with the rule of 3 and such. Other than making level-ups less fun, and cross-class skills even more frustrating, you're adding an extra layer of complexity to the skill system.

If you don't like how easily PCs can make skill checks why not simply adjust DCs to match your vision and/or disallow whatever cheese is allowing your PCs to hit insane check DCs? For example if you don't want PCs hitting 'nearly impossible' DCs until 21st level, begin by mapping out what an acceptable max bonus is at 21st level. For me that would be about +44 (24 ranks, +10 ability, +10 competence bonus). From there you adjust the 'nearly impossible' DC from 40 to whatever your comfort level is; for me it would be 55 (because a PC with a +44 bonus would hit that DC half the time). And now it's just a matter of disallowing any skill boosting cheese that a player might find, whether it be spells, classes, oddball bonuses or whatever. If it surpasses your max skill bonus expectations, just say no! (Or convert it to a competence bonus.) I'm sure this topic relates to your PP, so I suggest writing your expectations and guidelines right into it.

Also, I hope you fix the defensive casting DC if you haven't already! My preference is 15 + (Spell Level X 2), but that may not work at epic levels depending on your epic spell fix. A lot of people like opposed checks to resolve defensive casting, which works too.

TS

 

[Noumenon]

Hey, Tequila, this thread made me realize that the Tarrasque has toughness six times, which could be 300 extra hitpoints for him. I could just ignore the extra instances of the feat.

 

[Kerrick]

I'm a little late to this party, but I have a couple suggestions. It seems like you're trying to solve your skill problems the hard way, with the rule of 3 and such. Other than making level-ups less fun, and cross-class skills even more frustrating, you're adding an extra layer of complexity to the skill system.

Well... I should note that I'm using the PF skill system, not the 3.5 one.

If you don't like how easily PCs can make skill checks why not simply adjust DCs to match your vision and/or disallow whatever cheese is allowing your PCs to hit insane check DCs?

I'm working on the bonuses too, but simply changing what defines "heroic", "impossible", etc. borders on the Oberoni fallacy - you're not really solving the problem, just shifting it to a different scale

Also, I hope you fix the defensive casting DC if you haven't already! My preference is 15 + (Spell Level X 2), but that may not work at epic levels depending on your epic spell fix. A lot of people like opposed checks to resolve defensive casting, which works too.

I think I'm using 10 + opponent's BAB for AoOs and defensive casting. I can't find it in my notes, but I'll make a note of your suggestion in case I don't have it.

Hey, Tequila, this thread made me realize that the Tarrasque has toughness six times, which could be 300 extra hitpoints for him. I could just ignore the extra instances of the feat.

(This isn't quite on topic, and I'm not sure why this thread made you think of the tarrasque, but whatever. )

Or do what I did - change Toughness to +2 hp, +1/level (retroactive). It would get it only once. Of course, I also instituted another rule whereby monsters get a maximum number of feats equal to their Int score - this prevents the absurdity of huge animals and dinosaurs from getting umpteen Toughness feats to fill all their slots.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well... I should note that I'm using the PF skill system, not the 3.5 one.


I'm working on the bonuses too, but simply changing what defines "heroic", "impossible", etc. borders on the Oberoni fallacy - you're not really solving the problem, just shifting it to a different scale.

Okay then, maybe I'm not understanding what is currently being discussed. I admit, I haven't read every post but I thought that the point of this thread is to make the skill mechanics match what you think of as the appropriate levels that PCs should be consistently doing "heroic", "nearly impossible", etc feats of skill?

TS

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(BTW, it's 55%, not 50% - a L1 PC has to roll 9 or better on the die.)

Just FYI, 9+ on d20 is actually 60 percent.

 

[Kerrick]

Okay then, maybe I'm not understanding what is currently being discussed. I admit, I haven't read every post but I thought that the point of this thread is to make the skill mechanics match what you think of as the appropriate levels that PCs should be consistently doing "heroic", "nearly impossible", etc feats of skill?

It is, basically. I trotted out the examples in the PHB as guidelines for what I want to do - not only the labels, but the DCs. I don't really see the need for a DC above 40-50ish - after that, it just gets pointless and absurd.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It is, basically. I trotted out the examples in the PHB as guidelines for what I want to do - not only the labels, but the DCs. I don't really see the need for a DC above 40-50ish - after that, it just gets pointless and absurd.

Well then I'll restate my suggestion in a different way: do you really want to fix your problem from the player's side of the DM screen, or from the DM side? In my experience, house rules are much more effective if they operate from the DM's side because players tend to forget house rules beyond the approximate complexity of 'alignment restrictions are not enforced'.

In your case, do you want PC skill bonuses to be arbitrarily small or do you want DCs to be arbitrarily high? Either answer is arbitrarily based on your [Kerrick's] perception of what kind of feats PCs of a certain level should be able to do. The only real difference is that the first way creates more house rules for everyone to learn and remember, while the second way only requires the DM to learn and remember.

TS